[In the last issue of Tempo regular contributor Rowland Croucher wrote an article on Jesus and homosexuality resulting in a number of responses (mostly verbal) from readers. We received two letters to the editor, which appear in this issue. The letter by Brett Wilson was of article-length and it was decided to publish it unedited, with a final response from Rowland Croucher. Further constructive debate on this issue is welcome. – Eds]

I have no doubt that the article by Rowland Croucher in the last Tempo raised many responses. And I’m sure that my response must share a large pile on the editor’s desk. I find it disturbing to think that Croucher would believe the way he wrote. And I wouldn’t be surprised if his intention was just to stir up thought on the matter.

But whatever the reason for the article fining its way into our magazine I feel as a student at the Queensland Baptist College of Ministries I should at least make an attempt to correct what I and many of my colleagues perceive as error.

One doesn’t have to read very far into the article to find words which raise the eyebrows. I am referring to the line, "I was enjoying myself until the religious leaders gatecrashed it." It seems that the inference here is that Jesus is enjoying himself in the ‘bi’ bar. I cannot imagine the Lord, who came to give his life for sin, enjoying the presence of it.

Mark 2 tells us that Matthew’s "Mafia-type mates" were eating with Jesus (not seeking out partners to sin with) because they were following him – a very different picture to a bi bar. In any case Jesus was not just a casual participant but rather called Matthew to discipleship and his friends were intent on following too. It is interesting that Jesus refers to the sinners as ‘the sick.’

Another concern is in the statement that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but rather homosexual activity. What is the difference? What is the definition of homosexuality? Homosexual tendency may not be the same as the sexual act itself but it is still a perversion in the same way that lust is to adultery. Jesus condemns both. Paul also has words to say about homosexual tendency. In Romans 1 he refers to it as shameful lust and depraved mind. There is no doubt in Romans 1 that Paul views homosexual lust as one of the results of turning from God.

Croucher quotes Jesus as saying that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but gang rape. Perhaps that is one of the many sins of the wicked city. But to say the sin was not homosexuality is to grossly ignore the situation. Lot thought it less repulsive for them to have his daughters than to have his visitors. "Bring them out so that we can have sex with them"; "Don’t do this wicked thing". The wicked thing seems to be the sex with the men and not so much the sex with the daughters. To argue that gang rape was the major sin is merely an interpretation. To follow Croucher’s interpretation to its logical conclusion, it would have been okay if only one man wanted to have connecting sex with the angels.

Croucher’s attempt to capture the thoughts of Jesus on the matter of homosexuality appear to me at best, repulsive and at worst, blasphemy. When asked about whether God affirms homosexual love, Jesus doesn’t even answer the question. He talks about Law, love and railway tracks: "Law is to love what railway tracks are to the train." I think Croucher is confused between attraction and love. True love doesn’t need law at all. I cannot accept that Jesus would affirm homosexual love when the clear teaching in Romans is that it is not love at all but a perversion.

The statistics that Croucher gives on the sexual activities of homosexuals displays the extent at which the sin has gripped them. Seventy three percent of them have multiple partners. And all Croucher’s has Jesus saying is, "I do not condemn you." Jesus then goes on to say that insistence on nuclear family values is a deeper problem. I can’t understand that logic.

Croucher has Jesus also saying about the church, "There are saints and sinners at all levels of the church so let’s not be too judgemental." Is he saying that we shouldn’t expect a standard from our leaders? Paul says expel the immoral brother. It seems to me in the light of the question about homosexual priests that Jesus is bidding us to allow them or else be seen as a Pharisee.

In response to Tony Campolo’s statement, Jesus seems to be saying that we can’t expect homosexuals to be celibate. Why not? We expect unmarried people to be. And who says sex is needed to have "fulfilling, loving experiences." Allowing homosexuals to continue in their practice only increases guilt and compounds the problem.

Croucher then has Jesus saying that humans have no toleration for those who are different. And that it is only when we are truly redeemed that we can accept everybody. I do not tolerate homosexuality. Not because it is different or because it frightens me but because it is sin and a destroyer of lives.

There are many other things we could say about Jesus’ responses, for example, Jesus referring to liberals as friends when many of them don’t even believe who Jesus said he was. And his wry laughter about the Catholic’s enjoyment of sex is out of taste. And if Jesus believes that homosexuality is caused by nature then he disagrees with Paul.

But what really takes the cake is Jesus answer to the question, "Are you, um, er . . .?" It was as if he didn’t want to answer. It seemed like it almost wasn’t relevant. In the gospels, when it was suggested that Jesus was possessed by a demon, he said, "I am not." When they asked him to tell them if he was the Christ he said, "I already told you". When Croucher asks him whether he is gay, he avoids the question. I think he would have said "No."

There really isn’t much that is helpful in Croucher’s article at all. He may be familiar with homosexuality and people caught up in it, and I’m sure he is doing a good work with them. However, I really feel he has not represented our Lord very well. The church will come under increasing pressure to assimilate modern thought patterns into its belief and practises. Perhaps in an age where relevance is all important, and tolerance is the measure of a forward step in progress, we run the risk of forgetting that Jesus called us to be different.

[Brett Wilson is a student at the Queensland Baptist College of Ministries and serves as student pastor at New Beith Baptist Fellowship, Brisbane]

Rowland Croucher wrote: “All I can say in response to a letter like this, which raises some important concerns about law, is: ‘Why don’t homosexual people feel they are respected/loved by the church today, when they would have been certain Jesus loved them?’

I invite readers to visit my Internet homepage to see a range of articles on homosexuality and other matters: particularly a review of Dr. Muriel Porter’s recent book Sex, Marriage and the Church.”